Efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors in a patient with a mixed hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma.

A woman in her 60s was diagnosed with a metastatic, unresectable rare histological type of liver cancer; combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma. She had palliative chemotherapy, initially with gemcitabine and cisplatin, and then with oxaliplatin, L-folinic acid and fluorouracil. Both treatment strategies demonstrated disease progression, and somatic mutation profiling revealed no actionable mutations. The patient was started on immuno-oncology (IO) with nivolumab and ipilimumab, followed by maintenance nivolumab. She has achieved a sustained ongoing partial response since the start of this therapy for at least 12 months. The outcome in this patient is in keeping with the growing evidence of the role that IO agents have in metastatic biliary tract cancer and also serves to highlight their importance in mixed histology liver tumours.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Clinical outcomes of adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage III melanoma: comparison of CheckMate 238 trial and real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Nivolumab is approved as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III/IV melanoma based on the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial. This analysis compared outcomes from CheckMate 238 with those from the real-world Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab. MATERIALS: Outcomes included baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS) in the CheckMate 238 cohort (randomization until death or last known alive), and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in the Flatiron Health cohort (nivolumab initiation until death or data cutoff). rwOS was compared with OS using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was combined with the adjusted model to reduce baseline discrepancies. RESULTS: The CheckMate 238 and real-world cohorts included 369 and 452 patients, respectively (median age, 56.0 and 63.0 years; median follow-up, 61.4 vs. 25.5 months). rwOS was not different from OS in the unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 0.92-1.74), adjusted (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.67-1.54), and adjusted IPTW (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.63) analyses. In the adjusted analysis, 2-year OS and rwOS rates were 84%. Median OS and rwOS were not reached. After IPTW, OS and rwOS were not different (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, OS in the CheckMate 238 trial was similar to rwOS in the Flatiron Health database after adjustments in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab, validating the trial results.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

[A Case of Five Years Recurrence-Free Survival after Successful Multidisciplinary Treatment for Simultaneous Brain Metastasis and Heterochronic Small Intestinal Metastasis from Lung Cancer].

The patient was a 54-year-old male at the time of initial examination. He was aware of numbness and weakness in the left hemisphere of his body and came to see the hospital. He was diagnosed with brain metastasis of lung cancer and started treatment(cT2N0M1[Brain]). He underwent gamma knife for the head lesion and nivolumab for the lung lesion. The patient's lesions shrank with the success of the medical treatment, but recurred with small intestinal metastasis. He underwent a partial resection of the small intestine and was treated again with nivolumab, which resulted in a complete response. He is currently alive without recurrence. We have experienced a very rare case of recurrence-free survival after treatment for brain metastasis and small intestinal metastasis of lung cancer.

Facial palsy after administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors: case report, literature review and clinical care management.

Neurological immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are rare complications of immunotherapy, particularly dreadful for patients and clinical teams. Indeed, neurological irAEs are potentially severe and their diagnosis require prompt recognition and treatment. Additionally, the spectrum of neurological irAEs is broad, affecting either neuromuscular junction, peripheral or central nervous system. Here, we described the case of a 55-year man with metastatic melanoma, facing a brutal right peripheral cerebral palsy after his third ipilimumab/nivolumab infusion. After the case presentation, we reviewed the literature about this rare complication of immunotherapy, and described its diagnosis work-up and clinical management.

Neoadjuvant in Situ and Systemic Immunotherapy with Lymph Node Cryoablation in Resectable Stage III Melanoma Metastasis: a Proof-of-Concept Study.

PURPOSE: Complete lymph node dissection is the recommended treatment for clinically detectable lymph nodes in stage III melanoma. This surgery is associated with substantial morbidity. We hypothesize that combining percutaneous imaging-guided cryoablation of locoregional lymph nodes metastases with neoadjuvant in situ and systemic immunotherapy could allow disease control and evaluate the feasibility of this combination in this proof-of-concept study. METHODS: We enrolled 15 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma. Patients were treated as follows: a single 240 mg flat dose infusion of nivolumab on day 1, cryoablation under local anesthesia using CT on day 2, and a single intralesional injection of 10-20 mg of ipilimumab into the lymphadenopathy treated by cryotherapy on day 3. Five-eight weeks after this procedure, complete lymph node dissection was performed according to routine care. The primary outcome measure of this study was feasibility, measured as the number of failures (i.e., inability to complete the entire procedure). RESULTS: The procedure was carried out successfully in 15 out of 15 patients with an observed number of failures of 0. The Bayesian analysis showed an estimated failure rate of 4.2% [0.2-20.6]. Eight patients (53%) had adverse events secondary to either immunotherapy or cryotherapy. Grade 3/4 events occurred in three patients, but all resolved quickly and patients could proceed to surgery as scheduled. Eight patients (53%) had a pathological complete or near complete response. CONCLUSION: Combining percutaneous cryotherapy with in situ ipilimumab and systemic nivolumab for stage III resectable melanoma is feasible with tolerable toxicity.

[A Case of Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated with Conversion Surgery followed by Nivolumab Combination Chemotherapy].

The use of nivolumab as first-line therapy for unresectable advanced gastric cancer has now become a standard practice, and its efficacy has been established. This is the first report of a patient with advanced gastric cancer who underwent conversion surgery after first-line nivolumab combination chemotherapy. The patient was a 58-year-old woman. Her medical history included hypertension and dyslipidemia. She had advanced gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis in the left supraclavicular fossa and around the abdominal aorta. After confirming the HER2-negative status and the PD-L1 CPS score to be ≥5, nivolumab was administered in combination with chemotherapy. After the treatment, she underwent a total gastrectomy with D2 dissection, combined splenectomy and pancreatic tail resection for adhesions, and para-aortic lymph node sampling as a conversion surgery. There was no obvious cancerous remnant in the resected specimen, and the pathological response was Grade 3. The patient was alive and recurrence-free at 4 months postoperatively.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Soluble programmed death ligand 1 as prognostic biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab therapy.

Many studies have focused on the prognostic role of soluble programmed death ligand 1 (sPD-L1) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but outcomes are ambiguous and further investigations are needed. We addressed the matter by studying sPD-L1 in baseline samples and in longitudinal samples taken prior to three subsequent cycles of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 treatments. Eighty patients with NSCLC were enrolled. Median sPD-L1 level at baseline was 52 pg/mL [95% confidence interval (CI) 49-57]. In patients treated with pembrolizumab and nivolumab, the concentration of sPD-L1 remained rather stable throughout treatment. In contrast, sPD-L1 rose by 50-fold following the first cycle of atezolizumab therapy. We found the baseline level of sPD-L1 to be related to overall survival (OS) after two years of follow-up in simple Cox analysis (p = 0.006) and multiple Cox Regression, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% CI 1.00-1.03) (p = 0.033). There was no association between sPD-L1 and tissue PD-L1 expression, overall response rate, or progression free survival. In conclusion, sPD-L1 measured in baseline serum samples may be associated with OS in NSCLC patients receiving anti-PD1/anti-PD-L1 treatment. Importantly, the results signify that further research is warranted to explore the clinical utility of sPD-L1 in patients treated with anti-PD-L1.

[A Case of Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Advanced Gastric Cancer of Which Metastatic Site Was Disappear by Chemotherapy but the Primary Site Was Enlarged after Five Years].

A 77-year-old man presented to our hospital with a chief complaint of stomachache. He received a diagnosis of unresectable advanced gastric cancer classified as cT3, N+, M1(LYM, HEP, OSS), Stage ⅣB. He underwent first-line chemotherapy with SOX, second-line treatment with PTX plus Ram, and third-line treatment with nivolumab. The primary tumor showed a reduction in size, and liver and lymph node metastases were not detectable. However, after 5 years of chemotherapy, a re- enlargement was observed in the primary gastric lesion without progression of liver and lymph node metastases. Subsequently, conversion surgery was performed. Based on the pathological analysis, the diagnosis was ypT1b2(SM2), N0(0/17), M0, ypStage ⅠA, R0. After nivolumab administration postoperatively for 5 months, chemotherapy was discontinued as there was no recurrence.

Protocol for a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab as a postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal cancer treated with preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil treatment (PENTAGON trial).

BACKGROUND: In Japan, preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection is the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. However, the risk of recurrence after surgical resection remains high. Although a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of nivolumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-programmed death 1 antibody, as postoperative adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery established its superior efficacy as adjuvant therapy, the efficacy for patients who received preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has not been demonstrated. This study aims to elucidate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab as postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel and cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil followed by surgical resection. METHODS: This study is a multi-institutional, single-arm, Phase II trial. We plan to recruit 130 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients, who have undergone preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel and cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil followed by surgical resection. If the patient did not have a pathological complete response, nivolumab is started as a postoperative adjuvant therapy within 4-16 weeks after surgery. The nivolumab dose is 480 mg/day every four weeks. Nivolumab is administered for up to 12 months. The primary endpoint is disease-free survival; the secondary endpoints are overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and incidence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge this study is the first trial establishing the efficacy of nivolumab as postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel and cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil followed by surgical resection. In Japan, preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery is a well-established standard treatment for resectable, locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Therefore, developing an effective postoperative adjuvant therapy has been essential for improving oncological outcomes.

Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

BACKGROUND: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. RESULTS: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

Binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously treated microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations in an open-label phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with previously treated RAS-mutated microsatellite-stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a multicenter open-label phase 1b/2 trial was conducted to define the safety and efficacy of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor binimetinib in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) nivolumab (anti-PD-1) or nivolumab and another ICI, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4). METHODS: In phase 1b, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 1A (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [BID] plus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks [Q4W]) or Arm 1B (binimetinib 45 mg BID plus nivolumab 480 mg Q4W and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks [Q8W]) to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of binimetinib. The MTD/RP2D was defined as the highest dosage combination that did not cause medically unacceptable dose-limiting toxicities in more than 35% of treated participants in Cycle 1. During phase 2, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 2A (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab) or Arm 2B (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab and ipilimumab) to assess the safety and clinical activity of these combinations. RESULTS: In phase 1b, 21 participants were randomized to Arm 1A or Arm 1B; during phase 2, 54 participants were randomized to Arm 2A or Arm 2B. The binimetinib MTD/RP2D was determined to be 45 mg BID. In phase 2, no participants receiving binimetinib plus nivolumab achieved a response. Of the 27 participants receiving binimetinib, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, the overall response rate was 7.4% (90% CI: 1.3, 21.5). Out of 75 participants overall, 74 (98.7%) reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), of whom 17 (22.7%) reported treatment-related serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D binimetinib regimen had a safety profile similar to previous binimetinib studies or nivolumab and ipilimumab combination studies. There was a lack of clinical benefit with either drug combination. Therefore, these data do not support further development of binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in RAS-mutated MSS mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03271047 (09/01/2017).

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and impaired kidney function.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with renal insufficiency, usually defined as those with creatinine clearance < 40 mL/min, were excluded from pivotal clinical trials, especially in studies involving nivolumab therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) stratified according to creatinine clearance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from mRCC patients treated with nivolumab were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into two categories according to their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); the first category (C1) included patients with eGFR < 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the second category (C2) included those with eGFR ≥ 40 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Of the 95 patients enrolled, 1. group included 26 patients (27.4%) and 2. group included 69 patients (72.6%). None of the pts in category 1 were on hemodialysis. Overall incidence of adverse events was not statistically different between the two groups (P = .469). The overall response rate ORR was 50% in the first group and 42.0% in the second group (P = .486). Median overall survival (OS) was longer with 23.3 months in the 2. group versus 11 months in the 1. group (P = .415). CONCLUSION: Renal insufficiency is a common problem in patients with advanced renal cancer since they often undergo nephrectomy and their renal function may also worsen while receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. We found that there is no significant difference in the safety and efficacy of nivolumab treatment between two groups. Nivolumab appears to be a safe and effective agent in patients with renal impairment.

A three-gene expression score for predicting clinical benefit to anti-PD-1 blockade in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

In the advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) scenario, there are no consistent biomarkers to predict the clinical benefit patients derived from immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). Taking this into consideration, herein, we conducted a retrospective study in order to develop and validate a gene expression score for predicting clinical benefit to the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab in the context of patients diagnosed with advanced clear cell RCC enrolled in the CheckMate-009, CheckMate-010, and CheckMate-025 clinical trials. First, a three-gene expression score (3GES) with prognostic value for overall survival integrating HMGA1, NUP62, and ARHGAP42 transcripts was developed in a cohort of patients treated with nivolumab. Its prognostic value was then validated in the TCGA-KIRC cohort. Second, the predictive value for nivolumab was confirmed in a set of patients from the CheckMate-025 phase 3 clinical trial. Lastly, we explored the correlation of our 3GES with different clinical, molecular, and immune tumor characteristics. If the results of this study are definitively validated in other retrospective and large-scale, prospective studies, the 3GES will represent a valuable tool for guiding the design of ICB-based clinical trials in the aRCC scenario in the near future.

Retrospective comparison of a weight-based dose every 2 weeks with a fixed dose every month: a real-life analysis of nivolumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Nivolumab was first authorized at a weight-based dose (WBD) of 3 mg/kg every two weeks (Q2W). Since 2017, a fixed dose (FD) regimen [first 240 mg Q2W and then 480 mg per month (Q4W)] was allowed. The objective of the study was to compare a WBD regimen and an FD regimen with regard to effectiveness and safety. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, real-life study of consecutive adult patients who had received a WBD of nivolumab or an FD of 480 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The secondary endpoints were overall survival and cost of the treatment. In all, 342 patients were included: 71 in the WBD cohort and 271 in the FD cohort. Of these patients, 201 patients (59.6%) experienced an irAE, and 24 of these events were graded as ≥3. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in irAE occurrence between the two cohorts [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.54 (0.21-1.36), P  = 0.19]. The 12-month overall survival rate was significantly lower in the WBD cohort ( P  < 0.001). Switching from a fortnightly weight dose to a fixed monthly dose halves the cost of hospitalization. Our results did not show a significant difference between WBD and FD cohort in the occurrence of severe irAEs. However overall survival appeared to be significantly higher in FD group. Some clinical trials are investigating a hybrid dosing regimen in which a WBD is capped by an FD. The present results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus the EXTREME regimen in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.

[History and Perspective of Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer].

Advanced esophageal carcinoma is one of the diseases with a poor prognosis. CF(cisplatin plus 5-FU)therapy and taxanes( paclitaxel or docetaxel)were considered standard treatments for first- and second-line treatment of advanced esophageal carcinoma based on the results of phase Ⅱ trials, although no randomized controlled trials were conducted. Subsequently, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor(EGFR)inhibitors, which had shown efficacy in head and neck cancer and colorectal cancer, were developed but failed to prolong survival both first- and second-line treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown efficacy as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy in a variety of cancers, including esophageal cancer, where the KEYNOTE-181 trial and the ATTRACTION-3 trial demonstrated that single-agent pembrolizumab and nivolumab extended survival versus chemotherapy, respectively. In addition, the KEYNOTE-590 trial and the CheckMate 648 trial showed that pembrolizumab plus CF therapy was superior to CF, and nivolumab plus CF therapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab were superior to CF in advanced esophageal carcinoma. These combinations have become the standard of care for the first-line treatment of advanced esophageal cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors had prolonged survival, but the results are still unsatisfactory, and CF therapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors and novel agents is being investigated. This article reviews the history of chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent esophageal cancer and discusses future prospects.